Mr. Moto, I understand your righteous indignation, but the fact is this. Regardless of the intent of the lawmaker, the bill as originally posted was horrible. It was invasive and barbaric and just plain wrong. It was so wrong, that the person who wrote it himself went “Woah! That’s way wrong!” and is changing it before it has a chance to become a law.
We’re (OK, I’m) not upset with your initial decision to learn more about the motivations behind the bill. I’m upset with your qualifications and support (yes, support. Anything other than condemnation of a bill that invades people’s privacy and attempts to make criminals out of grieving mothers is support) - your support of the bill as it was originally worded is what is disturbing.
Learning more about motivations is good. Learning about motivations so as to suggest changes more in line with intent is even better. But unless there’s a concerted cry of outrage which brings shoddy wording into awareness, it doesn’t matter what his intent was. Intent aside, that bill was awful and terrible and deserved a knee-jerk condemnation. If it hadn’t gotten one, then it’s quite likely the lawmaker would have pushed to get it passed as it was (not realizing the sticky legal situation he was creating), and there’s always the chance that it would have made it through with it’s original wording intact. Then it wouldn’t matter what his intent was, he would have made criminals of women even he agrees shouldn’t be criminals.
I agree that the bill should have been changed. But I don’t see how my position could have been taken as any kind of support, nor do I see why I should have been singled out for abuse. Maybe it’s because I was here, and Delegate Cosgrove wasn’t. Still, to scapegoat me in that manner seemed unfair.
Maybe you missed the posts where I explained that, as a Virginia resident whose children were very nearly miscarried, I had a lot at stake here. I offered no qualifications for the bill apart from my original post, which turned out to have reflected the actual purpose of the bill, and would close a loophole in the law.
Had the bill gone any further than merely being written and introduced, I would have opposed it as written. And given that I’m a Virginia resident, a donor to the Republican Party and a former county Republican committeeman, I’d bet I would have had more sway over the legislation than a bunch of posters on a board.
You all have a right to your cry of outrage, but I have a right to not join it if I think it my duty to work another way.
Yes, at some level you are a scapegoat, because you were the only one posting a disenting view in this thread, and then came back to offer a “nyah, nyah” to the rest of us. If others had posted similarly to you, their names would be in my post as well
I respect your right “to not join it if I think it my duty to work another way,” but then why did you post, more than once, in this thread? You didn’t not join. You joined, but taking a minority stance on an ugly subject.
The law, as written, isn’t neeeded. It’s heinous. Doesn’t matter what the intent of the lawmaker is.
And what I’m saying is it doesn’t and didn’t matter what possible problem is being addressed by this law. This law, as written, stinks to high heaven. So to not cateforically reject it, as written, is tantamount to supporting it.
But why wait? It’s much easier to get a lawmaker to hear you before he’s put his baby on the line on the Senate floor. Once the ball is rolling, it gains in own momentum, and becomes a weapon. Part of our legal process is that people can and should be heard by their lawmakers. And we (and lots of other folks) were. It worked. The system (for once) worked. The good guys, including you if you really would have opposed it, won. So why the nasty post?
Look, I don’t want to hold myself out as some victim here. I post and take the consequences same as the rest of us. So I’m just going to drop this.
Don’t ever think, though, that I don’t mean what I say here. If I say I support something, it means I do. If I reserve judgement, it means I haven’t judged, and this shouldn’t be interpreted as support.
I support lots of things that are unpopular by the standards of this board, so I’m certainly not afraid of taking a contrary position. That is, when I’ve actually taken a position on a subject.
I think some of the members who are familiar with my history here will vouch for my honesty, even if they think I’m gravely wrong.
Mr. Moto, my doctor tells me that sometimes a knee jerk reaction is a sign of health. Some things are just a no-brainer. I’m sure that you can think of examples from the conservative side of the issues too.
Just a suggestion, but either see us as real, three-demensional people with lives and families of our own or don’t pay any attention to our opinions of your thinking. It really doesn’t make any sense to value the input of “just a bunch of posters on a board.”
Mr. Moto, out of curiousity, if the bill proposed were one which would grant the police authority to detain people indefinitely without being required to show any evidence of wrongdoing, would you also have reserved judgement until you knew the motivation behind it? Can you understand that the bill as proposed was ridiculously unreasonable to some of us here?
You’re right–kudos was too strong an approbation. I was just so happy to actually see a conservative actually be open to changing their minds that it went to my head.
I retract my kudos and say a hearty “fuck You” to all who think that the intent of a bill can be ascertained by mind reading, instead of what is actually on the page in black and white…
Sure, I can understand that. And my criticisms of some posters in this thread weren’t due to this reasonable opinion.
The criticism was leveled at those who’d shut me out of the discussion because of my maleness, and those who’d send disgusting things through the mail.
I didn’t know the motivations behind the bill, but remembered that there was a lot of talk a couple of years ago about the abandoned baby problem, and this bill seemed to me to be a reaction to that. I couldn’t fathom for one second what other possible motivation would be, and the theories presented on this board didn’t jibe with any problems I’d seen discussed in the media here.
My reply above wasn’t directed at people who disagreed with me on this - it was directed at those who attacked my motives and accused me of being heartless and insensitive.
I’ve already said I’m happy the revised bill will be more specific, and it may be changed by amendment or in conference before it is passed, if it ever is.
Oh. Well, never mind then. I agree with you completely on the bolded points. In fact, I’ll even second your “Fuck you.”
The rest of it, I’m willing to agree to disagree, and that whatever diety’s on duty right now that we both live in America, where we can disagree and use different methods for communicating to our lawmakers without going to jail or being burned at the stake.
The jury is still out on whether is would be more accurate to characterize Cosgfove’s reaction as “Oh, shit, I didn’t stay under the radar and got caught.”
Delegate Cosgrove has also pre-filed two House Joint Resolutions related to the definition of marriage (I’ll let you guess how he comes down on the issue).
Ooooh, come on, Mr. Moto. You’re far savvier than this. You couldn’t fathom another motivation? Our theories didn’t jibe with local media so you dismissed them because local media is always so terribly accurate, especially when discussing the motivation of pieces of crap legislation proffered by waste of skin jackasses who can’t get it up to get any further in their careers than the Virginia House of Delegates?
Give me an extremely huge break. You’re just not that dumb.
There you go again, insulting the character and even the manhood of someone just because you disagree with them.
That’s an attractive trait.
I can understand your anger, given that this is an issue that hits close to home for you. Indeed, we had some near misses ourselves. It’s just sheer luck that everything turned out OK for us. I don’t know what we would have done otherwise.
Does this mean you should attack others in quite personal ways? Does this attitude ensure civility in public discourse?
There’s a big difference between calling a bill a bad idea and calling its author a “waste of skin jackass who can’t get it up.”
Because, you know, having a miscarriage is the same as abandoning a baby. “Those poor, cold fetuses, all alone in the world. Won’t someone, please, think of the fetuses?”
Please note for the record that at 12:41 p.m. Mr. Moto refused to answer the questions posed directly to him, something I’d called Aldebaran Syndrome if I didn’t think that the Mods would frown upon it.
I’m entitled to insult whomever I want for whatever I want, Mr. Moto, in case you’ve forgotten. My insults towards Cosgrove, who is a rights-trampling bigot, do not have anything to do with you.